alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008248EN.01002101.xml

| 30.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/21

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS EPSO/AD/131-136/08

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

(2008/C 248/07)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| Hungarian (HU): | EPSO/AD/131/08 (AD 5)


  EPSO/AD/132/08 (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |
| Lithuanian (LT): | EPSO/AD/133/08 (AD 5)


  EPSO/AD/134/08 (AD 7) |
| Maltese (MT): | EPSO/AD/135/08 (AD 5)


  EPSO/AD/136/08 (AD 7) |

Hungarian (HU):

Hungarian (HU):

EPSO/AD/131/08 (AD 5)

EPSO/AD/131/08 (AD 5)

EPSO/AD/132/08 (AD 7)

EPSO/AD/132/08 (AD 7)

Lithuanian (LT):

Lithuanian (LT):

EPSO/AD/133/08 (AD 5)

EPSO/AD/133/08 (AD 5)

EPSO/AD/134/08 (AD 7)

EPSO/AD/134/08 (AD 7)

Maltese (MT):

Maltese (MT):

EPSO/AD/135/08 (AD 5)

EPSO/AD/135/08 (AD 5)

EPSO/AD/136/08 (AD 7)

EPSO/AD/136/08 (AD 7)

to recruit linguistic administrators (conference interpreters).

The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 248 A of 30.9.2008 in English, French and German only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         1594634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1405621
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    1475239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4568880
<PP&E>                                        11752909
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1738788)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                22342314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           739767
<BONDS>                                         405406
<COMMON>                                      50406461
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           312765
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (30479672)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  22342314
<SALES>                                        2264149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2881171
<CGS>                                          1371272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3998325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 39187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (55909)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1195243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1195243)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1195243)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         19,106
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 151,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                    9,459
<INVENTORY>                                   103,725<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              293,719
<PP&E>                                        158,668<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 83,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                698,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         221,269
<BONDS>                                       201,158
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          13,984<F4>
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       89,822<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                   (86,323)<F5>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  698,650
<SALES>                                       343,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              343,204
<CGS>                                         265,071<F6>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 265,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,829
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             24,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (19,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (482)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (19,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (6,249)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (25,423)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (2.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.07)
<FN>
<F1> Represents gross inventory net of loss reserve.
<F2> Represents gross PP&E.
<F3> Represents common stock of $90,353 less treasury stock of $531.
<F4> Represents redeemable preferred stock of $24,000 less Guaranteed ESOP of
     $5,694 and treasury stock of $4,322.
<F5> Represents accumulated deficit of ($45,466) less minimum pension liability
     of ($3,135) less foreign currency translation adjustments of ($57,722) plus
     common stock warrants of $20,000.
<F6> Includes product development expenses and excludes depreciation and
     amortization.
</FN>



</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8982 

To authorize NASA to reimburse Chincoteague for drinking water well 

replacement costs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2024 

Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To authorize NASA to reimburse Chincoteague for drinking 

water well replacement costs, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DRINKING WATER WELL REPLACEMENT FOR 

4 CHINCOTEAGUE, VIRGINIA. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Ad6 ministrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Admin7 istration may enter into agreements, as appropriate, with 

8 the Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, for a period of up 

9 to five years after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

10 to reimburse the costs of the Town of Chincoteague diVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:08 Aug 14, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8982.IH H8982

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8982 IH

1 rectly associated with the removal of drinking water wells 

2 situated on property administered by the National Aero3 nautics and Space Administration and the establishment 

4 of alternative drinking water wells which are located on 

5 property under the administrative control, either through 

6 lease, ownership or easement, of the Town of Chin7 coteague. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Proprietors of Centre Street Church in Machias *versus*Machias Hotel Company.

The line of a parcel of land to run parallel with and at a specified distance' from the south *side*of a building, should be measured from the corner board of that side, and not from the outer edge of the eaves.

On statement of pacts.

Writ op Entry.

*G. Walker,*for the demandant.

*A. Hayden,*for the tenant.

The opinion of the Court was prepared by

Appleton, C. J.

The line in controversy begins at Centre Street, and runs eastward, " parallel with and at the distance of eight feet four inches from the south *side*of the meetinghouse,” &c. The question for decision is, whether the " eight feet four inches” shall be measured from the *414corner board of the meetinghouse on the south side or from the outer edge of the eaves.

The parties have agreed upon a definite point from which and a course by which the line, eight feet four inches, is to be run.' What is that point? The admeasurement is to be made upon the face of the earth. The side of a meetinghouse is something material and tangible, something defined and certain. The roof is no part of the side of a building. The eaves are the edges of the roof, projecting beyond the face of the walls. The side of a building is as defined as the doors or windows, and as certain a point-of departure. The space from the extreme end of the eaves to the earth presents no material surface. Neither doors nor windows are to be found therein.

The question here is, not how much would pass by the conveyance of a house or other building; but where, in making an admeasurement, the place of beginning is to be found in describing a lot of land. That the parties may fix where they choose.

Judgment for the demandants — the eight feet four inches to be measured from the corner board of the meetinghouse on the south side.

Cutting, Davis, Kent, Dickerson, Barrows and Danfobth, JJ., concurred.
Link to 1998-DP-01785-SCT
To: File From: Michael Lowry Date: August 31, 2009 Re: Wilson, J.T. 2009a reference in UST Risk Assessment Report

On August 31, 2009, a telephone conversation and email exchange occurred between Zubair Saleem, John Wilson, and Michael Lowry. We discussed approaches for considering vapor-phase biodegr adation in the UST risk a ssessment. Dr. Wilson provided a dataset (see attached “BioF_J_Wilson_emp irical.xls”) and his an alysis calculating

bioattenuation factors based on these data. Th ese data were used to support the risk assessment after fitting a distribution to the data.
1 March 13 , 2015

Mr. Scott Zimmerman

Drone Zone

, LLC. 1980 Hoyt Ave nue E. St. Paul, MN 55119

Dear Mr. Zimmerman :

This is in response to your October 21 , 2014, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA

- 2014

- 0897 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administratio n (FAA) on behalf of Drone Zone

, LLC

. for an exemption from part 21

, §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103 (b)

, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Drone Zone

, LLC

. to c ommercially operate its small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to perform aerial cinematography

.

By email dated February 4

, 201 5 , which posted to the do cket on February 6 , the FAA sent you a request for additional information asking you to:

• Describe the aircraft make(s) and model(s) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the following: size, maximum weight (including payload) , and aircraft type (i.e.

‐ fixed

‐ wing,rotorcraft, lighter

‐ thanair). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

• Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum(s). FCC approved? This

information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

• Provide a description of the proposed airmen medical requirements.

• Your petition references a pre

‐ flight briefing and/or checklist. Describe the process used to

determine if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the N AS.

• Describe the process used to document UAS discrepancies and the corrective action taken

in the aircraft record. Examples of processes include (1) the petitioner has elected to use its2 own process to maintain its UAS and ensure that only airworthy an d safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the petitioner has elected to maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and inspection recommendations.

• Your petition references the material listed below, however the mater ial was not submitted

for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: o Flight operations manual

To date, the FAA has not received the required information to continue processing your petition. Because your petition lacks suf ficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed

your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information, please

resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director

, Office of Rulemaking
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2015-UBS8 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-UBS8

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b)  To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

  

March 1, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

KENNETH T. WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

 CASE NO. C2-12-103

TIM BUCHANAN, WARDEN, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH P. DEAVERS

Respondent.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed December 4, 2012, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered DISMISSING this action.

Date: December 4, 2012 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-00103-EAS-EPD Doc #: 29 Filed: 12/04/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CARSON BRILL, 1 Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. BIONCA LANG, Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § No. 43, 2021 § § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. CS08-02892 § Petition No. 19-10019 § § §

Submitted: June 25, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021 Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES , Justices.
ORDER Upon consideration of the opening brief and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant (“Father”) filed this appeal from the Family Court’s order, dated January 11, 2021, that granted sole legal custody and physical placement of the parties’ child to the appellee (“Mother”), with visitation between the child and Father to occur as agreed by the parties. On appeal, Father contends that the Family Court lacks authority to award sole legal custody to one parent

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2 without the consent of the other parent and that the Family Court’s order granting sole legal custody to Mother violated Father’s due process rights. (2) The Delaware General Assembly has vested the Family Court with jurisdiction to decide a petition for custody of a child. 2 Title 13, Section 721(e) of the Delaware Code provides that a custody proceeding between parents shall be determined in accordance with the best interests of the child, as set forth in 13 Del.
C. § 722. The law does not require that one parent consent in order for the Family Court to grant sole legal custody to the other parent, and Father’s reliance on Troxel v. Granville 3 is misplaced. 4 (3) Finally, to the extent that Father claims that the Family Court erred in connection with the hearing itself, Father has not provided a transcript of the Family Court proceedings. The record provided to this Court in an appeal must include a transcript of all evidence relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion. 5 As the appellant, Father had the burden of submitting a transcript of the hearing to support his claims. 6 He declined to do so, and therefore there is no basis on which to accept his conclusory claims of error.

2 10 Del. C. § 921(3). 3 530 U.S. 57 (2000). 4 Cf. Smith v. Guest , 16 A.3d 920, 930-31 (Del. 2011) (distinguishing Troxel , which involved a petition by a nonparent third party for visitation, from a custody dispute between two people with coequal parental interests). 5 Hunter v. Gamble , 2018 WL 6505988 (Del. Dec. 10, 2018). See also D EL

. S UPR

. C T

. R. 9(e)(ii), 14(e). 6 Hunter , 2018 WL 6505988, at *2.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
(Reap. Dec. 8373)

#### Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4891, etc.

(Decided December 21, 1954)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) The merchandise covered by these appeals consists of sheathing felt imported from England, which is such or similar to the sheathing felt involved in *US v. Morse et al.,*decided in ARD 38 and ARD 45, and therein held to be subject to appraisement upon the basis of export value. The record in said case is hereby incorporated herein.

> 2) Sheathing felt such as or similar to the sheathing felt covered by these appeals was freely offered for sale for exportation to the United States in usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at the prices stated during the respective periods, viz:

> Period of exportation Per crate of 10 rolls of sheathing felt 25 yds. long by 32 inches wide

> January 21, 1952, to August 31, 1952_ £12-11-6

> January 26, 1953, to date_ £11-15-0

> All less nondutiable charges as invoiced

> 3) There was no higher foreign value during the respective periods, and upon this stipulation the appeals enumerated in attached schedule may be deemed submitted, they being limited to sheathing felt.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the sheathing felt here involved, *566and that such values, for the sheathing felt exported during the respective periods, were as follows:

> Period of exportation Sterling per crate of 10 rolls of sheathing felt, 25 yards long by 32 inches wide

> January 21, 1952, to August 31, 1952- £12-11-6

> January 26, 1953, to date- £11-15-0

> All less nondutiable charges as invoiced

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed,

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Dissolved Solids Standard Method 2540C (1991)

( Dried at 180 °C )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or

Range: Data Reviewer

signature: Date:

Instructions: Co mplete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment”

section for each criterion not (“N”) met.

Note: Requirements wi th a * are project requirements not specific to SM

2540C.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills ) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No.,

and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt

Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page c opied from

SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and Blank 1, 2, 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Dissolved Solids Standard Method 2540C (1991)

Page 2 of 2

Final Ch ecklist July 9, 2010 

### SM 2540C REQ UIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N



### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

**•** Signatures?

**•** Completed?

**•** Sample ID numbers checked?

**•** Preservations? Temp? Volume ?

**•** Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

**•** Date received?

**•** Lab ID number checked?

**•** Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

**•** Preservation checked by lab? Temp?

Volume?

**•** Sample c onditions ?

**•** Sample hold time ?

**•** Any anomalies reported by lab ?



### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

- Filtration and Drying Inf ormation

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

**•** Standard expiration date:

**•** Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

**•** Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected

and analyzed as part of the sampling episode?

Indic ate the relative percent difference.



### SECTION D . QC INFORMATION

1. Was the tare weight of the evaporating dish

reported?

2. Was the sample volume recorded in milliliters (mL)?

3. Were the oven

- drying times reported?



### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the total dissolved solids

calculated by the formula in Section 4 of SM

2540C ?